I called them.They said they are kosher under the IKC, Rabbi Shwartz.They said that all of their meat is glatt Beit Yosef, but they are open on Shabbat without mashciagh temidi. Not sure how that works, but that is the info.

R' Schwarcz is well-known on these boards for being responsive to questions. You can find him here - http://nyrabbi.blogspot.com/ YOu may not agree with his answers, but he seems to engage with people.

They are open with a heter mechira, In other words, on Shabbos (and a few hours before and after) the business belongs to a non-Jew, and all profits made on Shabbos belong to him. (To avoid the sort of detailed accounting that would be necessary to determine exactly how much of the business's profit was made on which day, a percentage is stipulated in the contract, and the sale price is determined on that basis.)

Meat is sold without a mashgiach temidi, on the following basis. The owner is not present, and nobody present has an interest in the business's bottom line. Therefore if they run out of anything, the hourly-wage workers have no incentive to go out to the supermarket and buy, when they can simply tell customers they're out and make their lives easier. Therefore we don't need to worry about treife meat making its way into the shop. The incident at Chatzkel's place in Borough Park happened because the manager who sent a worker to buy hot dogs, and then neglected to check what he had bought, was the owner's brother-in-law and thus had an interest in not turning away customers. This leaves only the issue of basar shenit'alem min ha'ayin, and Rabbi Schwarcz relies on the Shach, who rules that there is no such prohibition.

Personally, I'm not so sure that one can rely on this. At the late lamented Madras Cafe (which was on 2nd Ave between 4th & 5th) I once ordered a coffee with soy milk (they made great filter coffee), and it was delayed so long I'd given up on it, when they finally served it with an apology, and an explanation that they'd run out of soy milk so they'd gone out and bought some. Now it may be that the owner made this decision, but I wouldn't bet on it; it seemed more like one of the workers decided to do it on his own, in order not to disappoint a customer. (They got a nice tip that time, and on my next few visits.) With soy milk, I reckoned there aren't many non-kosher brands on the market, so I had nothing to worry about; but this shows the existence of workers who give a damn, and that can be dangerous. When I put this to Rabbi Schwarcz he basically said that the workers at the places he certifies aren't that dedicated....

Some places I've spoken to that are open on shabbat rely on nichnat v'yotzei, and ocassionally have the maschgiach pop in on shabbat. This may not be the situation with hoomoos asli, but just mentioning that it is another way one can rely on not having a mashgiach temidi.

That's nichnas veyotzei. Not sure what "nichnat" might mean. But of course that is a minimum requirement; the question above was why that is *enough*, why a mashgiach temidi is not *required* in a meat place.

You are right, and I actually meant nichnas. Nichnas V'yotzei is another reason why a mashgiach temidi may not be required if the mashgiach sometimes comes on shabbos because of the fear of being caught switching the meat, as many poskim are of the opinion that basar hanisalem min ha'ayin is not an issue in a case where there is nichnas v'yotzei. Additionally, the fact mentioned above that the workers do not have incentive to switch the meat because they do not benefit from the switch is another reason why basar hanisalem min ha'ayin may not be an issue here.

I think you're confusing two things. If there's no full-time mashgiach who has the only keys to the meat storage, and the meat is not in individually wrapped and sealed packets, then it's by definition basar shenit`alem min ha`ayin, even if one is 99% certain that it's the same meat. The question is whether that is permitted or forbidden. This is a dispute in the gemara between Rav, who forbids it, and Levi, who permits it. The usual ruling is according to Rav, but the Shach rules according to Levi, so if one wants to be lenient one may rely on that.

The second question is, *assuming* basar shenit`alem is permitted, how one knows that this is in fact kosher meat; and that depends on an assessment of the workers' incentives, laziness or dedication, how concerned they are about the mashgiach, etc.

Technically, the term "basar shenisaleim min ha'ayin" is used in Shulchan Aruch YD 63, which is based on the gemarah you refer to (Chulin 95). It is the Rama who is lenient there, not just the Shach, but only if the meat is found in the same place, or if there is a siman (sign, such as a seal) or there is tevias ayin (recognized by a Jew as the same kosher piece of meat). It would seem that this Rama may be irrelevant here since none of these conditions are present at Hoomoos Asli. Plus, the leniency in that case is where the meat was never in the possession of an akum as clarified by the Shach in YD 118:25.

Despite this, there would seem to be two leniencies in this case that would allow this meat according to halacha, as per Shulchan Aruch YD 118, which speaks of “basar hanishlach biyad akum”, which has the similar concern of basar shenisaleim min ha'ayin.The Shulchan Aruch in YD 118:10 rules that Yotzei V’nichnas will permit meat that is nishlach biyad akum. The Shulchan Aruch also rules in the same chapter that if the akum doesn't benefit from switching, there is also no prohibition. Therefore, if there is a mashgiach yotzei v'nichnas at the store, or the workers don't benefit from switching the meat, it would seem that this prohibition would not apply. Hoomoos Asli may have both of these conditions. This is what I was referring to above.

My understanding is that there is no source in the Gemarah or Shulchan Aruch of the concept of a "mashgiach temidi" (full time mashgiach), and that it is a chumrah applied by kashrus organizations today to try to avoid mishaps, (or to act according to the ruling of those opinions who do not agree to leniencies with regard to 'basar shenisaleim min ha'ayin' or 'basar hanishlach biyad akum'). This would seem to make it up for debate whether it is necessary according to halacha. Since a mashgiach temidi causes significant additional expenses, some have questioned if this chumrah is even halachically allowed in many cases, since it may involve charging money unnecessarily.